[et-mgmt-tools] Re: virt-manager broken by bind(0) in net-next.

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:51:14 +0300
Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr at ioremap.net> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 11:30:22PM +0100, Eric Dumazet (dada1 at cosmosbay.com) wrote:
> > > It should contain rough number of sockets, there is no need to be very
> > > precise because of this hueristic.
> > 
> > Denying there is a bug is... well... I dont know what to say.
> > 
> > I wonder why we still use atomic_t all over the kernel.
> 
> It is not a bug. It is not supposed to be precise. At all.
> I implemented a simple heuristic on when diferent bind port selection
> algorithm should start: roughly when number of opened sockets equals to
> some predefined value (sysctl at the moment, but it could be 64k or
> anything else), so if that number is loosely maintained and does not
> precisely corresponds to the number of sockets, it is not a problem.
> 
> You also saw 'again' lavel which has magic 5 number - it is another
> heuristic - since lock is dropped atfer the bind bucket check, and we
> selected it, it is possible that non-reuse socket will be added into the
> bucket, so we will have to rerun the process again. I limited this to
> the 5 attempts only, since it is better than what we have right now (I
> never saw more than 2 attempts needed in the tests), when number of
> bound sockets does not exceed 64k.
> 
>

How is any of this supposed to fix the bug?